4.0 Article

Formaldehyde Carcinogenicity Research: 30 Years and Counting for Mode of Action, Epidemiology, and Cancer Risk Assessment

Journal

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 181-189

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623312466459

Keywords

biomarkers; carcinogenesis; environmental toxicology; inhalation; mechanisms of toxicity; risk assessment

Funding

  1. NIH [P30 ES010126, P42-ES005948]
  2. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
  3. American Chemistry Council
  4. Formacare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Formaldehyde is a widely used high production chemical that is also released as a byproduct of combustion, off-gassing of various building products, and as a fixative for pathologists and embalmers. What is not often realized is that formaldehyde is also produced as a normal physiologic chemical in all living cells. In 1980, chronic inhalation of high concentrations of formaldehyde was shown to be carcinogenic, inducing a high incidence of nasal squamous cell carcinomas in rats. Some epidemiologic studies have also found increased numbers of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and leukemia in humans exposed to formaldehyde that resulted in formaldehyde being considered a Known Human Carcinogen. This article reviews the data for rodent and human carcinogenicity, early Mode of Action studies, more recent molecular studies of both endogenous and exogenous DNA adducts, and epigenetic studies. It goes on to demonstrate the power of these research studies to provide critical data to improve our ability to develop science-based cancer risk assessments, instead of default approaches. The complexity of constant physiologic exposure to a known carcinogen requires that new ways of thinking be incorporated into determinations of cancer risk assessment for formaldehyde, other endogenous carcinogens, and the role of background endogenous DNA damage and mutagenesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available